Repeatedly in discussions on Twitter, which admittedly is not the place for subtlety, pro-independence Scots have told me that the thing that matters is winning the Yes vote – “Everything else” can get worked out post-indy.

This is indescribably foolish.

One, because presumably they are attempting to convince me to vote Yes, and I’ll vote for status-quo devolution if they’ve got nothing more in the pot to offer but “We want you to vote yes!” Telling me that this is the “wrong attitude” to take to the independence referendum? Well, fine, but it’s my attitude: you can’t convince me to vote yes by refusing to engage with me.

Two, because realistically: I understand that the proposed timescale for independence is two years after a “yes” vote wins. Assuming that the Yes vote does win, that means four or so years from today, Scotland would be an independent nation.

That is none too much time to begin the Constitutional Convention to discuss what form and structure the new nation should have.

I wrote about the work of the Constitutional Convention in the 1990s back in February, but it’s worth remembering here: that work took years, but it delivered the basis of the Scotland Act that created the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 1998 has the European Convention on Human Rights embedded into it. If Scotland becomes independent, there’s every possibility that we could backslide from that without the same level of work that was invested in the 1990s.

In this time of change we ask real Scots: who should have power in Scotland?

Most of us agree should be governed by the people, for the people but do our politicians always know about or act in the interests of voters?

We are planning a ‘People’s Gathering’ – a one day assembly of ordinary people to find out what they think.

There are only 129 seats available, but anyone can apply to be part of it. I have: you should.

I am still undecided about independence. But the referendum will happen, regardless. And apparently, until the legislation about the referendum clears the Scottish Parliament, it will be an unregulated campaign:

The main Yes and No campaigns – and any other campaigns that spring up – are able to spend as much as they like, accept money from any source, including foreign donors, and are not obliged to declare their income or expenditure.

Existing political parties will still be governed by general rules on donations and spending, but the arms’ length campaigns, even if they get most of their money and support from the parties, currently exist in a legislative vacuum.

The two main campaigns say they’ll voluntarily follow the rules that are imposed on political parties (no foreign donations over £500, make public the names of donors) but there are no sanctions that can be imposed if they don’t, or if they fail to disclose information or distort the information.

An Electoral Commission spokeswoman confirmed that, because there was not yet legislation governing the 2014 referendum, campaigners would be free to accept foreign donations and were under no obligation to account for their finances.

“Essentially there are no rules in place to regulate them at the moment. At the moment, the referendum doesn’t exist legally.

“It’s quite unusual because there’s such certainty [about a date] although legally it doesn’t exist. It’s kind of strange. So we’re in uncharted waters, I think it’s probably fair to say.”

The three huge issues that foreign interests will have their eye on: oil, the banks, and the media. Oil is the biggest deal of them all, because there is no reason to suppose that after independence, the deal made by Donald Dewar with the Labour government to redraw Scotland’s maritime boundaries would stand. The banks: well, Alex Salmond may think it simpler just to duck the question by declaring that Scotland will continue to use sterling, but I think he’ll find that there is no way to dodge this one. Scotland will on independence get only a population-proportionate share of the debt, and an economy in very comfortable shape. Financiers may see a brand-new independent country as a nice ripe target for lots of good loans: we can bear in mind what happened to Iceland and to Greece. The media: who gets to own Scotland’s BBC properties? Will they be nationalised, handed over to a newly chartered SBC corporation – or will News Corporation get them?

All of this would be need to be clear and settled before autumn 2014, and all of these areas are exactly where I wouldn’t want to see foreign interests donating to spin the debate their way.

But human rights are a huge issue which other interests may wish to erode – or use as a smokescreen for grabbing in other more lucrative areas. We have a basic standard of human rights in Scotland that needs to be front-and-centered in any claim for independence, because if Scotland becomes independent, the Scotland Act no longer applies unless a written Constitution says it does.

There is also a Radical Independence Conference happening in October 2012, but I’d rather see these issues mainstreamed into the Yes and No campaigns, not treated as a radical demand.

We should begin from the equality standards we already have – the Scotland Act, the equality legislation passed since then for Scotland by the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. We should be going forward. not back.

Properly managed, working out what a Constitution for Scotland should look like is a project that “no” and “yes” and “undecided” can all get behind. And for the Yes campaigners who keep telling me that they don’t want to get into detail about policy because that might “alienate” voters: well, refusing to go into detail about what you want me to vote for is sure as death alienating to me.

11 responses to “A new claim of right for Scotland”

The problem is that the questioners very often don’t want serious answers. The nature of the questions is such that in many cases they are unanswerable and that is why the enquirers keep asking them because the apparent inability of anyone to give the detailed responses they claim to seek is interpreted as meaning that the answers are in some way damaging to the Yes side. The truth about independent states (particularly in the EU) is that they are like businesses. They can make plans, attempt to anticipate what future conditions might be and take actions accordingly. But humans have not yet discovered how to see into the future so everything any government does anywhere must be based on the premise that if conditions change – which they invariably do – then the government will respond in appropriate way. The appropriate way to respond is the one which benefits the nation most. The situation which prevails at present is that the UK government is doing most of the responding and its primary interest is not now, never has been and never will be Scotland. This is the matter at the heart of the independence campaign. If doubters want answers to their many and varied questions then they must ask them too of the UK. What decisions will the UK make regarding currency that best meet the interests of Scotland, for example?

I agree that some questions are unanswerable (certainly right now) – the currency question in particular needs to have a flexible answer, and one not devised four years ahead. But we should know what we;re voting for.

I have been wondering can you even call it independence if you do not control your own currency and your own interest rates? What exactly would you be in control of income! expenditure! taxes! – but not their value? These are sort of big things can’t see how you can sort these out after the vote. Need to get the economic group back up and running.

I’m coming late to this however think about how our current UK government is run. It gave over much the same controls to the bank of England which an independent entity from our government and we seem to be running just fine. Sharing a resource between countries for mutual advantage is surely worth considering.

“And for the Yes campaigners who keep telling me that they don’t want to get into detail about policy because that might “alienate” voters: well, refusing to go into detail about what you want me to vote for is sure as death alienating to me.”

I wholeheartedly agree. This nonsense about waiting until after the vote takes place isn’t just a leap of faith, it’s a blind leap of faith.

I think you are letting your own fears colour the debate. You are essentially frightened/terrified of the way ahead as regards independence and want to control that, by wanting policies fixed in stone before you vote.
However no nation can see into the future. No government can say what will happen in the future and how they will definitely respond.

The world doesn’t work that way. I cannot say that the HOL legislation for reform will be passed, or when it will be passed or whether some new idea will surface or will all revert to the HOL as is, & reform will be forgotten. Will we get a referendum over reform? Will it be placed on the back burner as it is too difficult, or will it come secondary to other events economic, or even military? We can guess, but we do not know.
We do not know how the EU or the Eurozone will pan out. Will Greece be a non EU country in a year or in a decade or will it weather the storm? What effect will the Eurozone have long term on the UK? No-one has a crystal ball.

Politicians need to have the ability to turn on a sixpence, as events dictate. We do not want people with fixed ideas following a plan that is so rigid that there is no room for manoeuvre when events overtake us.
Saying that the Govt. will definitely follow a uncompromising plan after independence, is not possible and would not be beneficial either. The new Scotland will have to find its own way, being flexible is what it will need to be.

How can anything be set in stone to answer all your insecurities?
We will have elections, changing personalities and changing attitudes after Independence, where they will take us is anyone’s guess but likewise we have no idea of how the UK will look by 2016 and after.

The referendum vote just gives us, the people of Scotland, a hand on the tiller, as opposed to being tugged by the UK boat.

However no nation can see into the future. No government can say what will happen in the future and how they will definitely respond.

Oh, I guess I just imagined all those written Constitutions, then. Silly me.

How can anything be set in stone to answer all your insecurities?

Again, you know, you’re just not being convincing.

The historical fact is: we have a Scottish Parliament with equality built into it, with the structure that it has, because of a lot of very solid legislative and pre-legislative work that got done by the first Scottish Constitutional Convention and by Donald Dewar.

You may not be old enough to remember that, but I am.

The SNP backed out of the first Scottish Constitutional Convention because they said they were only prepared to support independence, not devolution. Now they’re not supporting calls for a second Scottish Constitutional Convention, one intended for independence – and the rationale behind that is… “oh well, nothing is set in stone!”

I think the SNP are frightened that if they support a second Convention it won’t be under their control. That all sorts of people will get input to it. That independence for Scotland won’t be an SNP thing any more.